Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

"Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

What name might that be?

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

What name might that be?

Don't remember. IIRC he was babbling about how Bournouli was wrong and how
upper camber is irrelvant. Do you remember?

-c

"Gatt" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago
under a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same
guy.

What name might that be?

Don't remember. IIRC he was babbling about how Bournouli was wrong
and how upper camber is irrelvant. Do you remember?

Sounds vaguely familiar - but no specifics come to mind.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

What name might that be?

Hey, I found it: It's under the thread "John Travolta Sues His Home
Airport" circa August 10.

The person's exact words were "Camber does not produce lift" and he quoted a
NASA site that contradicted him. He also said
"Many pilots don't understand that angle of attack is everything. That's
why many of them get into trouble in unusual situations. "

I'll give you guys ONE guess who that person was, and you probably don't
need a hint, but he's undoubtedly the most accomplished Flight Simulator
pilot on the newsgroup.

-c

"Gatt" wrote:
Hey, I found it: It's under the thread "John Travolta Sues His Home
Airport" circa August 10.

The person's exact words were "Camber does not produce lift" and he
quoted a NASA site that contradicted him. He also said
"Many pilots don't understand that angle of attack is everything.
That's why many of them get into trouble in unusual situations. "

I'll give you guys ONE guess who that person was, and you probably
don't need a hint, but he's undoubtedly the most accomplished Flight
Simulator pilot on the newsgroup.

Oh - I rarely read his posts, so that may be why I missed it.

"Gatt" wrote

Hey, I found it: It's under the thread "John Travolta Sues His Home
Airport" circa August 10.

The person's exact words were "Camber does not produce lift" and he quoted
a NASA site that contradicted him. He also said
"Many pilots don't understand that angle of attack is everything. That's
why many of them get into trouble in unusual situations. "

I'll give you guys ONE guess who that person was, and you probably don't
need a hint, but he's undoubtedly the most accomplished Flight Simulator
pilot on the newsgroup.

Bingo. As I said, even without proof, it is obvious.

Anyone else notice that the increase of the chad's posts were directly
inversely proportional to MX's?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist.
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:02:48 -0700, "Gatt"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
.. .

However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic attacks I've
seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something
outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them.

The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under a
different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and approach
the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make reference to
something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.

Additionally, there's a difference between coming in and posting out of the
box versus coming in and suggesting that all the textbooks are wrong. If he
wants less vitriol he'll approach our common understanding of aerodynamic
science with a little more respect when among our own community.

-c


I've monitored this group for several years and contributed a little
now and then. I don't recall a previous post on this subject, but
then I don't read every post either, so it may have slipped past me.
If I've responded to a troll I apologize to the group. However, based
on his OP, he doesn't sound like a troll... he sounds like he
genuinely has some questions on the established theory of flight and
has suggested alternatives by his rudimentary experiments. I thought
the OP was meant to stimulate discussion. It seems it has, along with
some of the aforementioned vitriol.

I'm not sure claiming some of the textbooks are wrong isn't true.
Certainly NASA thinks so. I don't think they are *all* wrong, but
clearly some have misused the theories on why airplanes fly. I guess
we could kick this around for years and not come to agreement. After
all, the argument has been going on since the Wright brothers.

Ron

Gatt writes:

I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove your
theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it.

Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions of
collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line based on
the aerodynamic principles in books ...

But they have not built airplanes, as you suggest (with a few rare exceptions,
and even then they did not design them).

About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how
aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever seems to
have flown an airplane.

Flying an airplane wouldn't help, although designing one (successfully) would.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Gatt writes:

I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove
your theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it.

Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions
of collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line
based on the aerodynamic principles in books ...

But they have not built airplanes, as you suggest (with a few rare
exceptions, and even then they did not design them).


I have.



About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how
aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever
seems to have flown an airplane.

Flying an airplane wouldn't help, although designing one
(successfully) would.




You haven't done either, fjukkktard


Bertie